4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Qu Wenruo wqu@suse.com
[ Upstream commit 3c0efdf03b2d127f0e40e30db4e7aa0429b1b79a ]
The extent tree of the test fs is like the following:
BTRFS info (device (null)): leaf 16327509003777336587 total ptrs 1 free space 3919 item 0 key (4096 168 4096) itemoff 3944 itemsize 51 extent refs 1 gen 1 flags 2 tree block key (68719476736 0 0) level 1 ^^^^^^^ ref#0: tree block backref root 5
And it's using an empty tree for fs tree, so there is no way that its level can be 1.
For REAL (created by mkfs) fs tree backref with no skinny metadata, the result should look like:
item 3 key (30408704 EXTENT_ITEM 4096) itemoff 3845 itemsize 51 refs 1 gen 4 flags TREE_BLOCK tree block key (256 INODE_ITEM 0) level 0 ^^^^^^^ tree block backref root 5
Fix the level to 0, so it won't break later tree level checker.
Fixes: faa2dbf004e8 ("Btrfs: add sanity tests for new qgroup accounting code") Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo wqu@suse.com Signed-off-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin alexander.levin@microsoft.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- fs/btrfs/tests/qgroup-tests.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/tests/qgroup-tests.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/qgroup-tests.c @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static int insert_normal_tree_ref(struct btrfs_set_extent_generation(leaf, item, 1); btrfs_set_extent_flags(leaf, item, BTRFS_EXTENT_FLAG_TREE_BLOCK); block_info = (struct btrfs_tree_block_info *)(item + 1); - btrfs_set_tree_block_level(leaf, block_info, 1); + btrfs_set_tree_block_level(leaf, block_info, 0); iref = (struct btrfs_extent_inline_ref *)(block_info + 1); if (parent > 0) { btrfs_set_extent_inline_ref_type(leaf, iref,